On Friday 13 September 2013 07:12 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Thursday 12 September 2013 08:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>> On Thursday 12 September 2013 06:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> Now the real question is, how that expansion mechanism is supposed to >>>> work. There are two possible scenarios: >>>> >>>> 1) Expand the number of handled interrupts beyond the GIC capacity: >>>> >>>> That requires a mechanism in CROSSBAR to map several CROSSBAR >>>> interrupts to a particular GIC interrupt and provide a demux >>>> mechanism to invoke the shared handlers. >>>> >>> This is not possible in hardware and not supported. Hardware has >>> no notion of muxing multiple IRQ's to generate 1 IRQ or ack etc >>> functionality. Its a simple MUX to tie knots between input and output >>> wires. >> It's not a MUX. It's a ROUTING mechanism. That's similar to the >> mechanisms which are used by MSI[X]. We assign arbitrary interrupt >> numbers to a device and route them to some underlying limited hardware >> interrupt controller. >> >>>> 2) Provide a mapping mechanism between possibly 250 interrupt numbers >>>> and a limitation of a total 160 active interrupts by the underlying >>>> GIC. >>>> >>> This is the need and problem we are trying to solve. >> Let me summarize: >> >> - GIC supports up to 160 interrupts >> >> - CROSSBAR supports up to 250 interrupts >> >> - CROSSBAR routes up to 160 out of 250 interrupts to the GIC ones >> >> - Drivers request a CROSSBAR interrupt number which must be mapped >> to some arbitrary available GIC irq number >> > Correct. > >> So basically the CROSSBAR mechanism is pretty much the same as MSI[X] >> just in a different flavour and with a different set of semantics and >> limitations, i.e. poor mans MSI[X] with a new level of bogosity. >> >> So if CROSSBAR is going to be the new fangled SoC MSI[X] long term >> equivalent then you better provide some infrastructure for that and >> make the drivers ready to use it. Maybe check with the PCI/MSI folks >> to share some of the interfaces. >> >> If that whole thing is another onetime HW designers wet dream, then >> please go back to the limited but completely functional (Who is going >> to use more than 160 peripheral interrupts????) device tree model. I >> really have no interest to support hardware designer brain farts. >> > Thanks for clear NAK for irqchip approach. I should have looped you > in the discussion where I was also suggesting against the irqchip > approach. We will try to look at MSI stuff but if its get too > complicated am going to fall-back to the initial probe based > approach to achieve the functionality. > > Thanks again for clear direction and useful discussion. Thanks for the feedback. I will look in to the MSI driver and see if how that would work. Regards, Sricharan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
